People v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cunningham

105 A.D.2d 752, 481 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 752 (People v. Cunningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cunningham, 105 A.D.2d 752, 481 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant [753]*753from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Ritter, J.), rendered June 5, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of Raymond Duncan, defendant’s conceded accomplice, to satisfy the requirement under CPL 60.22 (subd 1) (see, e.g., People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970).

As to defendant’s challenge to the sentence imposed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor is there any basis for this court to modify the sentence in its discretion (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant [753]*753from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Ritter, J.), rendered June 5, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of Raymond Duncan, defendant’s conceded accomplice, to satisfy the requirement under CPL 60.22 (subd 1) (see, e.g., People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970).

As to defendant’s challenge to the sentence imposed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor is there any basis for this court to modify the sentence in its discretion (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 752, 481 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack